DAK 'Encanto' and 'Indiana Jones'-themed experiences at Animal Kingdom

DavidDL

DavidDL

Well-Known Member
I see the removal of Dinoland USA as Disney conceding that they no longer have the creative ability to make some of the most popular and incredible creatures ever to walk the Earth work in their parks.

I guess just because they aren’t able to stick a (TM) towards the end of the species names? Or because there isn’t some upcoming movie or Disney+ show to tie them into?

Weak.
 
HauntedPirate

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
Garyjames220 said:
When I was there during my 2 week start of December trip there was times it was at 90 minutes
Click to expand...
I've gotten in line when it's said 45 and 60 minutes and it's been 20, last September was my most recent ride.

You also went during what has become a rather busy time of year. Was it an actual 90 minute wait or was that just what you saw as you walked by? Curious, not accusing.
 
JackCH

JackCH

Well-Known Member
DavidDL said:
What really bums me out is how DINOSAUR becoming yet another Indy attraction adds to the homogenization of the parks.

When I first visited WDW in 2007, I was super excited for DINOSAUR. It ended up being one of the absolute highlights of my trip. I’ll never forget my first ride through, the absolute terror I felt being in the driver’s seat when the Carnosaur began to “chase” the vehicle from the left.

What made it special, and what separated WDW from DL where I grew up, is that things weren’t shared between parks. WDW didn’t have Indy, they had DINOSAUR. It felt special, unique. It was quite literally one of many exclusive attractions that made me want to go and visit WDW despite DL being a 20 minute drive from my parent’s place.

Sure, the upcoming Indy will have a “different” story than the one in DL but I wonder to myself: if it had always been Indy, if all the WDW attractions were just minor deviations from their DL counterparts, would I have felt as much need to visit back in ‘07? Probably not. “Bah, we have Indy here and there’s another in Tokyo” is what I’d probably have said.

It’s a shame, really, that many of the parks continue their slow march into generic, brand loyalty centers at the cost of their original identities.
Click to expand...
I feel the opposite. It seems Disney is moving away from that. There were no clones announced at the last D23. Magic Kingdom is going to feel the most different from Disneyland it ever has, rather than the relatively worse version it has been for most of its existence. Even if people don't like the additions, there were definitely options for cloning they intentionally chose not to do.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
DavidDL said:
I guess just because they aren’t able to stick a (TM) towards the end of the species names? Or because there isn’t some upcoming movie or Disney+ show to tie them into?
Click to expand...
The latter. Because they tried and failed. After two dinosaur movies and a Dinoland that was not lovingly embraced, it was time to call it quits.

Especially, since Universal did make successful dino movies. If Disney tried *another* dino movie, they'd be called out for for just following Uni. And imagine if that movie failed... yikes.

This was a time when Disney failed with regard to a specific genre. Uni wins on dinos. Disney wins on princesses. You play the hand you have.

And if you want Disney to double down on dinos in the parks without a merchandising theatrical tie-in... well... that's not going to happen. There are plenty of successful movies that suffice for park tie-ins and merchandising and franchising without using dinos.
 
S

Sorcerer Mickey

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
And if you want Disney to double down on dinos in the parks without a merchandising theatrical tie-in... well... that's not going to happen. There are plenty of successful movies that suffice for park tie-ins and merchandising and franchising without using dinos.
Click to expand...
Good thing Dinosaur is being replaced by a franchise with a recent successful movie.
 
wdwmagic

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
Original Poster

New ECO-RYTHMICS Show Brings Recycled Beats to Disney's Animal Kingdom​

www.wdwmagic.com

New ECO-RHYTHMICS Show Brings Recycled Beats to Disney's Animal Kingdom

New ECO-RHYTHMICS Show Brings Recycled Beats to Disney's Animal Kingdom
www.wdwmagic.com www.wdwmagic.com

ECO-RYTHMICS_Full_58927.jpg
 
DavidDL

DavidDL

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
... And if you want Disney to double down on dinos in the parks without a merchandising theatrical tie-in... well... that's not going to happen. There are plenty of successful movies that suffice for park tie-ins and merchandising and franchising without using dinos.
Click to expand...

Right? Mickey forbid they give Dinoland a general "plus-ing" or come up with new, "IP-less" attractions featuring dinosaurs that keep the identity/mission statement of the park in tact. Why on Earth would they want to go that route? Obviously it's impossible for lands or attractions to be profitable without a feature film to base them off of.

If only there were attractions somewhere in Disney's catalog that proved otherwise. If only there were some original attractions that had withstood the test of time and proved popular/profitable enough to become "IP" in their own right and retain dedicated fanbases.

If only Disney still wanted to prove they could do things better than the competition by offering a dinosaur themed land that everyone could enjoy, where not all the attractions are thrill rides that come with height requirements or some rule that adults can't ride without a child. That'd be like, the "Disney difference", or something.

Gosh, if only. :rolleyes:
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
DavidDL said:
Right? Mickey forbid they give Dinoland a general "plus-ing" or come up with new, "IP-less" attractions featuring dinosaurs that keep the identity/mission statement of the park in tact. Why on Earth would they want to go that route? Obviously it's impossible for lands or attractions to be profitable without a feature film to base them off of.

If only there were attractions somewhere in Disney's catalog that proved otherwise. If only there were some original attractions that had withstood the test of time and proved popular/profitable enough to become "IP" in their own right and retain dedicated fanbases.

If only Disney still wanted to prove they could do things better than the competition by offering a dinosaur themed land that everyone could enjoy, where not all the attractions are thrill rides that come with height requirements or some rule that adults can't ride without a child. That'd be like, the "Disney difference", or something.

Gosh, if only. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I could see one wanting a dino experience at a theme park.

I can't see the lack of a dino experience as a failure.

Plenty of great parks don't have a dino experience.

There's no rule that a park has to have one to be considered good.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
I could see one wanting a dino experience at a theme park.

I can't see the lack of a dino experience as a failure.

Plenty of great parks don't have a dino experience.

There's no rule that a park has to have one to be considered good.
Click to expand...
The question isn’t about any park. It’s one specifically about animals, and not just living real animals. Past, present and imagined. Such an important concept that it was built into the entrance of the park.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom